User talk:Finnusertop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


User page   Talk   Guestbook   Contributions    
   

Contents


problems with my images[edit]

Hi! You tagged 2 of my images, ConvergEvoSkinjpg.jpg and ConvergEvoEyesjpg.jpg for deletion. I thought that the reason was pretty bizarre, IMHO. The banner states the the image "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information". Even though I'm a newbie, I did look for such figures to explain convergent evolution of skin and eye color. Couldn't find any. So, as the banner suggested in my italics above, I created them, and then had you claim that one might reasonably be found!!!! Bizarre, IMHO. Go find them! Now I suspect that the reason that so many wp articles could benefit from images which they don't have is because of this nonsense. You also tagged PseudogeneBrafjpg2.jpg. The only thing I could find missing was the date. So, I added today's date. I've list it as CC4.0. If that CC4.0 is permission, rather than "licensing", please explain to me what I should do to license it. No hard feelings. I assume that I'm going to get better at this. I just hope the learning curve is rapid. DennisPietras (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) DennisPietras (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DennisPietras. These images were briefly discussed here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Derivative works using fair use content.
The problem with the first two images is that you've used non-free images of eyes, lemurs, and faces of different skintones that you found on the Internet as the basis of your figures. You can't do that because we have plenty of free images of all three e.g. here: c:Category:Lemuriformes, c:Category:Close-ups of human eyes, and c:Category:Human faces. Even if we had zero suitable images now, these are all things that are readily available for photopgrahy, so it is always possible to create free images of these.
Uploading files is one of the most difficult Wikipedia tasks, and believe me even experienced editors get things wrong at times. You've picked up two of the most difficult tasks in that category: non-free content that our policy limits to minimal use that is far more stringent than fair use in U.S. copyright law; and collages where you need to make sure each image is okay and attribute each of them proprely taking the terms of their licenses in consideration. For these first images I'd suggest your re-make them and use only images you find from Wikimedia Commons in the process.
The third image has one obvious but surmountable problem (which, I grant, the broilerplate tag I added does not convey clearly), and one other problem which I less clear. The obvoius problem is that you need to slap one of these on it: Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free. The less clear issue is whether or not you can create a digram that contains the same information as the original without relying on it for representational aspects. It is assumed that you can, because data and information are not copyrightable but individual represations thereof are, and there is no reason for you to closely follow the original presentation rather than making one from scratch. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
So,I can find human brown and blue eyes from your links. The lemur link above has no useful images for blue and brown lemur eyes. The blue lemur eyes I used came from a part of the image on the wp page "Blue-eyed black lemur". The brown lemur eyes I used came from a part of the image on the wp page "black lemur". I do not know why those images don't appear on the lemur link above. Can I use the lemur eyes? If not, I cannot make the diagram, since I cannot find any other lemur eye pairs. I did find examples of faces that I can use for the skin color diagram on the links above. In fact, I'm even happier with the faces I found above. Now that I've learned the "category:" search strategy, I found a blank map too. So, the bottom line of the first 2 images are delete them both. I can redo the "skin color". I can redo the "eye color" if and only if I can use the lemurs. Please advise.
As for the BRAF, I am NOT a professional artist! No, I cannot "create a diagram that contains the same information as the original without relying on it for representational aspects." If I tried, the best I could do would be infantile and not worth my time, even though my time is worthless, being classified as 100% disabled and unemployable by the social security administration. I doubt that you can appreciate how long it takes me to type. MS. Fine motor control problems. And, no, I don't care that those health records remain in perpetuity on historical versions of your talk page. No need to block it. So, now that I've described that I cannot create such a diagram, can I use it? If not, here's a real subtelty: since I am quite convinced that the BRAF image meets US fair use standards, can I demand that wp let me use it by appealing for reasonable accomodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Talk about a can of worms.... 8-). Please advise. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
While you are dealing with me, please take a look at H2AZchromcompjpg.jpg. If that isn't OK, I'm going to have a lot fewer contributions to make to wp....DennisPietras (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
DennisPietras, I dug up some photos of lemurs on Commons; how is File:Eulemur mongoz (male - face).jpg or File:Blue-eyed black lemur.jpg?
The gist of replaceability in the non-free content policy is that it is not contingent on the ability of anyone in particular, but the nature of the work. For instance, no one can create his own "free version" of a painting by Picasso, because that compromises the authenticity that makes such an image useful for an encyclopdia article. Similarly, no one can create anew a photo of C. S. Lewis, since that window closed when he died. Finally, historical artifacts are sometimes held in the collections of museums but not on public display, so no one can snap a free photo of them. In each case it is not possible to create a free equivalent; in the case of the diagram, there is no such inherent obstacle based on the nature of the image.
Yes, there are hinderances on free content creation based on e.g. the location (it's easier for me to snap a photo of my hometown than of some distant and remote location), artistic skill (I am by no means a great illustrator either), and – unfortunately – physical ability. However, these are not consideration that the non-free policy recognizes; it all comes back to the nature of the image, not of the author. Fortunately, image editing help is available at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. You could post a request there. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility who coordinate help on accessibility issues in general.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia's non-free content policy is purposely stricter than fair use in U.S. copyright law. Many things that are legally fair use still fail our non-free content policy. The upside is that if something passes our strict criteria, it's pretty much guaranteed to also pass the legal standard.
If you are confident that the NIH images were, in addition to just presented, created by a NIH emplyee, then they are in the public domain and okay to use (see c:Template:PD-USGov-NIH).
To recap: the lemur eyes you found are not okay, but there are some good ones on Wikimedia Commons (those category trees can be a bit tricky to navigate though; if you are not happy with the ones I found I can have another look at that). As for ability of a particular author, it is not a concern that the non-free content policy considers; it's all about the type of image. Disability and accessibility issues, on the other hand, are an area Wikipedia wants to get better at, and there is some help available. The NIH images are okay. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 03:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
DennisPietras, apparently the lemur eyes in your original image are okay, as they just happen to be from Wikimedia Commons (File:Blue-Eyed Black Lemur.jpg and File:Eulemur macaco female 01.jpg). You can use these lemur eyes, just make sure you link back to these images; "parts of other online images" is not a proper attribution. You should also publish the whole collage with a license that conforms with all licenses. With those specific lemur eye photos that would be {{Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, as worked out by Marchjuly (see the discussion below). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 04:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit of technical file licensing stuff[edit]

(talk page watcher) Hi Finnusertop. File:Blue-Eyed Black Lemur.jpg and File:Eulemur macaco female 01.jpg seem to be where DennisPietras got the lemur eyes. Both of these files are on Commons, so I am just curious why they can't be used (cropped or otherwise) in a collage as long as proper attribution is given to the original uploader. I understand that the licensing used for the collage cannot be CC 4.0 since that is less restrictive than the CC 2.0 used by both files. Can't the collage's licensing just be changed to CC 2.0? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case, Marchjuly, they can be used – given that 2.0 is used and both pictures are attributed, of course. That "parts of other online images" were used, as the file description says, just made me think of the worse case scenario (as it should) and I can't tell a Commons lemur eye from a non-Commons one without someone telling me; this is why we provide sources anyhow. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 04:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
That wording tripped me up as well since I assumed "online" meant external website and not Commons. I'm still not sure about where the human eyes came from, but thanks for all your help in trying to sort this out. You can remove the collapse templates if you want. I just did it to try and avoid derailing this thread too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Marchjuly Thanks folks. Considering how much effort has gone into this, millions of people better remember those examples after seeing them and talk about it with their friends and families! DennisPietras (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop deserves all the credit because he did all of the heavy lifting. I just tried to sneak in at the end and steal some of his glory.Face-smile.svg
Do you remember where you found the files for the human eyes? If they were also taken from Commons photos, there's a pretty good chance this can all be quickly sorted out. If, however, you did get them from an external website, you may be better off changing them out for something found on Commons. Once the licensing of all of the individual copyrightable elements has been sorted, you can then tweak the file's description to indicate where you got those files from. For example, it could be probably done like File:Collage of views of Lublin.jpg, File:200K articles collage hewiki 2.png or File:Hornamer.jpg which would make it clear which files were used and make it easier to verify their individual licensing.
Finally one last thing, remember to use two curly brackets for templates like {{yo}}. Two square brackets are used to create links and will not work as a notification. Click "Marchjuly" in your previous post and see where it takes you. For reference, you unintentionally created a piped link with that markup. Piped links are very handy, so that's a good trick to stumble upon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Har citations[edit]

Thank you for fixing citations at Günther Herrmann (SS commander). I see that you somewhat specialise in this field :-).

Harv citations have always been the bane of my existence. So I wonder if you would not mind doing the same at the Wendy Lower article? If not, not a problem at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure, K.e.coffman. Harv citations rock, but since WP doesn't give any indication about whether they work or not, you need to know a trick or two. Believe it or not, I like fixing these. Let me know if you don't like something about the output. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Women's Union of Korea[edit]

Thank you for your edits on the North Korean womens' organization, but I think they have just renamed it the “Socialist Women's Union of Korea”[1]--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be correct, Bellerophon5685. I hadn't looked at the very latest sources. I've moved the article. Thank you! – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

References

North Korea[edit]

I like you're work :) Very good. I have a question for you (and I've failed to track the numbers down); do you know, or do you have resources, which states the number of delegates to WPKs 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th conferences, and number of non-voting delegates to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd congresses? I know, a hard question, but I'm working on the National meetings of the Workers' Party of Korea article, and I'm failing. I've only really worked on 3-4 WPK related articles. So good someone is improving the quality of North Korean articles here on WP. They really need it! :) --TIAYN (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Trust Is All You Need. I don't believe I've seen these anywhere, and I don't know a definite source. You probably have more experience with WP(N)K meeting topics than me, anyway. Robert A. Scalapino and ‎Chong-Sik Lee (in both co-authored and individual works) tend to be meticulous with detail, so I'd check their work, if you haven't already. If all else fails, you should see if speeches made at these events reference the numbers. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tipps, I'll definitely check them out! :) --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 in NK timeline article (follow-up)[edit]

Dear Finnusertop, happy new year. This is a follow-up/update in connection with our conversation we had last year in your talk page . Encouraged by your messages, I have gone ahead and started expanding & updating the 2017 timeline. I saw you created a draft. I kept that, build upon it, and now just copied it to the actual article 2017 in North Korea. I have not deleted the draft page becauase I am not sure how to do it, and since you created I thought it best to tell you first and leave it to you to decide how to proceed with that draft page. All the best, (talk) user:Al83tito 8:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Good job, Al83tito (though for future reference, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and here even a straightforward WP:MOVE would have worked out). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

On the Juche Idea[edit]

Hi. There seems to be something wrong with the quote box you added to this page.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack. Those brackets around wikilinks are tricky. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Esther Shemitz#Help images[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Esther Shemitz#Help images.  Seagull123  Φ  16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It always amuses me[edit]

when an image that I upload 5 years ago, such as File:Statue of Geo. Washington at Rogers University.jpg is suddenly up for speedy deletion. I remember trying to track down the sculptor who was as I recall, a Korean student at the university where the statue is. I finally learned that he had returned to Korea (I think it was) and had died. No doubt his next of kin would want this removed ASAP, so better get that admin on it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RFU question[edit]

Hi Finnuserstop. Would you mind taking a look at File:TVFilthyFrank-ChannelArt.jpg? The file probably needs to be reduced, but I am wondering if this could possibly be considered replaceable fair use per WP:FREER. On one hand, it might be argued that this image is for the fictional character Filthy Frank, so non-free use is justified. On the other hand, it might also be seen as identifying the real life person George "Joji" Miller, which means NFCC#1 comes into play. The article is essentially a BLP about a living person who happens to pretty much known only for this character, so although the article title may be OK per WP:COMMONNAME, I'm not sure if using a non-free image should be allowed. Just for reference, I'm asking you because you have participated in lots of image related discussions and because of the recent comment you made at WT:FFD#RfC: Feedback on the process. Normally, I would take this to FFD, but I'd rather not add to the backlog there if this can be resolved another way (i.e., {{rfu}}) or is a non-issue. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. This is the kind of edge case that could use FFD, but here is my take on it: I think in a biography article, we should use an actual image of the actual person, as himself rather than as a role character, in the infobox. This is implcicit, though not actually spelled out in WP:IUP#Content and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. This is done even in articles on actors and suchlike where arguably the person is better identified as his most popular role. The only exception I can think of is the article Muhammed, where the image of choice does not visually identify the subject, though in that article we are bound by conventions. There are NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 problems as well. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Finnusertop. I've started a discussion about the file's use at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated[edit]

Hello, I'm struggling with balancing between well referenced, faithful to source but not plagiarism. I would appreciate if you have time and patience to tutor me a bit. Earlier today I have inserted more PD tags in similar cases which you reverted, any suggestions what to do ? The over-tagging with PD was a reaction to a comment on my own talk page. In fi-wiki the standard reply is "kirjoita omin sanoin" but how many ways can you say there are 27 district courts in Finland ? TIA, --Tappinen (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tappinen. I agree that balancing text–source integrity vs. avoiding potential plagiarism issues is a delicate thing. I'd argue that re-using PD sources is not the best solution to the problem: such sources are seldom up to date (e.g. old editions of Encyclopedia Britannica, which are sometimes copied on Wikipedia), neutral (old editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia), don't follow the same conventions (e.g. WP:MOS), and in general can't be cut and pasted to a different context altogether and still be optimal prose. In addition, such sources are sparse and false positives abound (the ministry website definitely isn't PD). The best way is, still, to read the best sources available and summarize them in your own words. Paraphrase, but avoid Wikipedia:close paraphrasing. That being said, there is no need to be paranoid about it either; having two or even three consecutive words that match the source is not that bad, as long as an honest effor is made to use one's own words. Don't try to twist conventional terms (district courts are "district courts", so don't change that). If you are looking at alternative ways to say things, a thesaurus might become handy (personally I use thefreedictionary). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have made some rehearsals in the fi-wiki, but looks like I still have a lot to learn here, especially in "attribution". --Tappinen (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Permission to include Royal Academy archive photograph[edit]

Permission to include a Royal Academy archive photograph

I would like to use a 1906 group photograph of art students from the Royal Academy archives, along with its caption. I have received the email below from the RA giving me permission. What is the procedure (if there is one) so that the photo and caption can be included in a Wikipedia article. I would also like to put the name of one student in bold (the subject of the article). Do I need to ask for further permission to do this? David hewick (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 'Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:01 PM

Subject: RE: For the attention of Andrew Potter New email from Dr David Hewick RE: I am researching a work of art. Copyright query

Dear David

Yes you may use this photo for your article, but we do ask that it’s a low resolution image only, you can upload the image off our website.

http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexplus?_IXSR_=lPmxLVa_3ni&_IXSP_=0&_MREF_=100564&_IXSS_=%252asform%3d%252fsearch_form%252fallform%26_IXresults_%3dy%26exhibitions%3dtrue%26_IXACTION_%3dquery%26all_fields%3dDOVASTON%26archives%3dtrue%26_IX%252ey%3d0%26books%3dtrue%26_IX%252ex%3d0%26works%3dtrue%26_IXMAXHITS_%3d18%26_IXTRAIL_%3dSearch%2bResults&_IXACTION_=display&_IXSPFX_=templates/full/&_IXTRAIL_=Search%20Results Please can you include our credit: Photo credit: © Royal Academy of Arts, London Best wishes

[redacted name]

Picture Library Administrator Picture Library, Royal Academy of Arts, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BD

   According to the website, the photo is dated around 1903 without a known photographer. Thus, I believe (but would wait for confirmation) that that would make it a public domain image (even the website says it is out of copyright). Thus, this can be uploaded to Commons under a public domain license. However, the fact they seem to want to claim copyright is similar to the issue over from the National Portrait Gallery (see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute). To follow how those images are handled, you should still upload to Commons but you may to use the PD-Art tag there (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). You might want to ask for more help there on this issue. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
       Thanks Masem. I would like to acknowledge the Royal Academy. However, the PD-Art- tag page is no longer available. I will seek further adviceDavid hewick (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by David hewick (talkcontribs)  

Redirect proposal[edit]

There is a proposal to redirect the recently created Far-left politics in the United Kingdom. As you previously commented on it you may want to [Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom contribute] ----Snowded TALK 06:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kek Kuk[edit]

The Kek (Mythology) was previously Kuk (mythology) but now the name kuk has been scrubbed from it While the Kuk pronunciation is 4/5 as popular it should be included for clarity as it is fairly common. If I put it back are you going to revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:566:1900:C40B:2336:EFC8:2E40 (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to revert if you fail to cite a reliable source. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

2007 Columbus Crew Season[edit]

Hi, I noticed you deleted the article I wrote and redirected it to the team's main page. I'm a little bit confused about what the standard for creating articles on seasons is. This article is qualitatively not much different than some of Columbus' other seasons articles (e.g. the 2008 and 2009 seasons), and yet they've been allowed to stand. What can I do to improve the article so that it meets the notability guidelines? I'm pretty new to editing things on Wikipedia, so I don't know what all the standards are yet. I just don't understand why that standard is being applied here and not for those other seasons. Jay eyem (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jay eyem, and thanks for dropping by. The standard is exactly what I quoted (WP:NSEASONS): "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." You should always compare each article against the standards laid out in policies and guidelines. Do not compare articles to one another: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is universally considered a non-argument on Wikipedia, because those other articles may fail the very standards. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
OK that makes sense, I'm still learning all of the policies on Wikipedia. So obviously for something like a soccer season, statistics are the most significant part of the season. There are a few sections that I was planning on filling out that would have been primarily prose (and I'm still working on finding sources). I am still confused as to why this standard is not being held for other articles, even though I understand why this article was deleted. Jay eyem (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that statistics are important, and they are allowed, too. It's just that an article should be more than just a table or two. As to why are rules not enforced, there are many reasons. First and foremost, few process on Wikipedia are truly systematic. When rules are ignored for a long time, bad practices take over and become the new "standard". Perhaps most importantly, because Wikipedia is about content creation, those who want to enforce stricter (or even the current approved) standards are sometimes labeled as "deletionists". – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, I appreciate your input and knowledge. I'll take this into account when making additional season articles. Jay eyem (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing the Book of Isaiah[edit]

You stated that my changes could not be done without citations. Acceptable.

But why did you allow the original content to state that Cyrus was "the messiah" when the book of Isaiah does not ever state that Cyrus was "the messiah"? The book of Isaiah almost doesn't even mention Cyrus! He is mentioned twice, and for very little, and certainly not to be named a messiah!

Why the hypocrisy in that criticism? Why was that allowed "without citations", but my changes are not?

(Nonetheless, I will reprove them anyways) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.224.40 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the sentence in question, Sweeney 1998, pp. 79–80 is given as the source. Look at those pages from the book in the bibliography and you will find that this is indeed what the soruce says, on p. 80: "Altogether, this section (of the Book of Isaiah) argues that the restoration of Zion takes place against the background of the designation of the Persian king Cyrus as YHWH's messiah". In other words, it is sourced. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Have I used the correct Licensing for this photograph (continued)[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_574#Have_I_used_the_correct_Licensing_for_this_photograph

Hi, my question on the Tea House was archived, but it can still be seen above. Some kind soul went and deleted the image while "learning the OCRS system" and I don't really know what I am supposed to do next. I DID provide the proof required as I am sure you remember, because you updated the image page accordingly. Any suggestions?

I presume I need to upload it again on wikimedia commons and pick the correct license this time round

and thanks again for your time :) Jahannum (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jahannum. From what I read at c:Commons:OTRS, it appears that they'll have access to the deleted file. They can review it and check it against the permission you've given. If your permission checks out, they'll restore the file. So, if you've sent a permission by email, that should be fine. Just don't get surprised if it takes time, I'm told the process is backlogged. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok that makes a lot more sense, and yeah the English queue was estimated at 49 days when I originally sent my proof. I have no problem waiting and am very relieved that it's still in the system. I've spent a lot of time finding a photographer that would donate an image to the cause, so to see an "amateur" stroll in and delete it really annoyed me lol. Thanks again for the rapid response and I don't mind if you want to delete this post from your talk page now.
yours sincerely, Jahannum (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Shield of the Trinity[edit]

I strongly object to segregating the internal links to depictions of the Shield of the Trinity diagram to external links of the Shield of the Trinity diagram, since that means you have to duplicate a whole set of subsections in both places in the article in a confusing manner. Like it or not, the article doesn't have any general-purpose external links of the more usual kind, so a cookie-cutter one-size fits all approach is not particularly useful in this particular case. Nor is the section header "Foototes"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm not going to revert you right now, but in many of the [URL "descriptive text"] structures which you converted to footnotes (thereby creating the very same bare-URL problem which you're complaining about with a template), the URL was not really a "reference" in the sense of material which could go into a footnote, but rather a direct exemplification of what is mentioned in the article. If the article text discusses manuscript X, the user can click on the highlighted text and go to the British Museum website to see manuscript X with his or her own eyes. Your bare-URL footnote approach is a functional disimprovement... AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi AnonMoos. External links should not really be embedded into the bodies of articles per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and WP:EL#cite_note-7. Not only is there the problem of link rot which needs to be considered, but WP:ELNEVER also needs to be taken into account. It would be best to convert these links into inline citations (if they are to reliable sources), wikilinks or even possibly add them as external links is they meet WP:ELYES/WP:ELMAYBE. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to function as list of external links to third-party websites, and not every example of the shield which can be found online needs to be included. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Edit to National World War I Museum and Memorial Under External Buildings[edit]

Hello Finnusertop. I am wanting to clarify the correct form for a second reference to the same source but to different pages within that source. I researched in Wiki Help but did I find outdated information? If listing the same source twice in full is the better practice, I will change it. Thanks. RM2KX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, RM2KX. There is a correct way to do just what you intended (see Template:sfn documentation, and User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for what the problem was). It's also easy to fix. In the case of this article, I was hesitant to fix it myself because you have two works by Donovan from 2001. I've now fixed it, presuming that you want to refer to Lest the Ages Forget: Kansas City's Liberty Memorial twice. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
That's correct. Thanks so much! Obviously I didn't notice that to look for the solution. RM2KX (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I separated the full bibliographical details of incoming short citations as a section of its own ("Works cited"), RM2KX. It's not a necessary step, but it's very commonly done, and I find it a clear representation. You have "Millstein 2006" where you don't do this. Both styles work and are valid, but you might want to be consistent. Either put the full bibliographical details of Millstein under "Works cited", or put the full details of Donovan back inline the first time that source is used. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Assembleias[edit]

You actually saw it first. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know it's non-existent. Just spotted a dubious stub that had been unsourced for more than 10 years. Chances are that such topics are non-existent though. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kal Hamara Hai poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kal Hamara Hai poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giyorgis of Segla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hayq (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ch'ŏngnyŏn[edit]

Hello! I know you're as much into NK topics as I am. So there is something I can't understand: What does Ch'ŏngnyŏn in North Korean railway station names mean? KCNA translates it to Youth and it truly means Youth, literally "Blue/Green Years" but does it make any sense? Does it maybe mean that it is a young, newly-built part of the town/city/village, or that mostly young people live there? Oppashi (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Oppashi. I forgot to answer your question. My impression is that Ch'ŏngnyŏn means "youth", not "new". There are institutions other than railway stations that come with the term. One recent example is the "Paektusan Songun Youth Power Station". These institutions are either built by, run by, or just dedicated to the youths of the country. Managing and extolling the youth is a political theme in North Korea, especially under Kim Jong-un. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh okay, thank you! Oppashi (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Smoking in North Korea[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Smoking in North Korea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stingray Trainer -- Stingray Trainer (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Smoking in North Korea 2[edit]

The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Article for things which need to be addressed. Stingray Trainer (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Smoking in North Korea 3[edit]

The article Smoking in North Korea you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Smoking in North Korea for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stingray Trainer -- Stingray Trainer (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your Deletion Of The Statement That KCNA Is A Fake News Site[edit]

I suspect you are violating the terms of Wikipedia, as I suspect that you are tied to the country, and are therefore trying to remove anything that makes the country look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 'Pedia Trician (talkcontribs) 22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. I removed the statement because it was not supported by reliable sources and it was not in accordance with neutral point of view. Does the KCNA sometimes publish unfounded stories? Certainly. Does that make it a "fake news website"? That seems to be only your own interpretation and not of any reliable authority. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Allegation[edit]

There are people on Wikipedia who are there to influence certain articles innappropriately. Therefore, there has to be some kind of way to make mention of it without it being branded as a "personal attack". After all, aren't we all using anonimous profiles, whereby we don't take every concerned statement so personally? It would seem that always just telling someone they failed to follow the "rules" here of there is not within the communital spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 'Pedia Trician (talkcontribs) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There are methods to bring accountability to users with inappropriate behavior, 'Pedia Trician This process usually starts at one of the noticeboards for administrator attention. But that's only for behavioral issues concerning users; most issues start and end as issues with article content. And this is where no personal attacks and assume good faith step in: unless there is evidence of long-term inappropriate behavior, one should not claim that a user is pushing an inappropriate agenda. (For instance, I have more than 26,000 edits here. Most of them are not on North Korea related articles. Most of those that are, are content additions and not removals. If you look at any article with significant edits by me, you'll discover that I don't shy away from adding or retaining negative information concerning North Korea provided that there are sources). But basically, I agree with your stance here: there are (and should be) ways to report suspicious users – and that means all users, I'm not immune to that – but I hope that this discussion has helped to clear any suspicion or misunderstanding. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, but I have a question about your edit summary[edit]

Many thanks for your several recent edits to articles involving Karlheinz Stockhausen and his compositions, mostly pointing out broken citation links. I have corrected most of these, but your summary for this edit leaves me a bit mystified: "{{Empty section|date=April 2017}}, please use WP:SS from the main article here". I have read the linked article, without any illumination. I assume that the "main article" is the biographical article on Stockhausen, where you placed the "empty section" template. Or have I got this the wrong way around, and some sort of link needs to be placed at Stockhausen's entry in the "LMST" list? If the latter, how is this meant to be done? That list was created some time ago by User:Hyacinth, who pulled the "notable students" lists from at least dozens if not hundreds of composer-bio articles. This seems sensible enough to me, but now it appears that the resultant empty sections in those many articles require something needs doing. I cannot tell from the WP:SS article what that might be. Can you help me out here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jerome Kohl. Thank you for asking, and my apologies for the ambiguous message (I notice that I use the term "main article" in a garbled way). What I mean is that we should not have empty sections (including sections that consists solely of a hatnote). When empty sections are due to the information already existing in some other article (such as List of music students by teacher: R to S#Karlheinz Stockhausen), what should be done in this article (Karlheinz Stockhausen) is to summarize what the other article says. I think the spirit of WP:SS is that a link is not enough; stray links are for See also sections. What I think the section Karlheinz Stockhausen#Notable students should do is, in addition to giving the link in the hatnote, replicate a partial list of these students. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. This is bound to create a certain amount of havoc for User:Hyacinth because, as I noted, his creation of that list created such void sections in possibly hundreds of composer-bio articles. I have noticed that editors have in a few cases restored names, sometimes selectively, sometimes wholesale. Earlier there had been a fairly extensive discussion of this problem on the Stockhausen biographical article, where the problem of an over-long embedded list was especially acute. I was asked to pare down the list to the ten or so "most notable" names. I had (and still have) no criteria for judging the relative notability of the names in that long list, so the only reasonable course of action I can see is to restore the whole thing to Stockhausen's biography. If this were to be carried out in all the other similar cases, it would probably call into question the existence of the LMST, which has in the meantime grown to epic proportions. How do you think this problem can best be avoided? I could arbitrarily limit the restored names by, say, including only names with an H in them, or restricting it to surnames with more than twelve letters. I think this bears some thinking about, before plunging into a series of bold additions, inevitable reverts and, ultimately, to what I predict would become a lengthy but unresolved discussion. What it boils down to is how to determine relative notability in such a case?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess this is something that has to be worked out by those who edit the biography, Jerome Kohl. It's a consensus issue, and that might involve BRD and other means of consensus building. I'm not terribly interested in this particular article and I have no suggestions as to how to summarize. I'm interested in the general idea that empty sections are unwanted and summary style is how closely related articles are often linked together. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. If what you say is true, it appears that Hyacinth's project runs contrary to the idea that empty sections (in this particular case: Lists of notable students of musicians) are undesirable. Since I am the major contributor to the Stockhausen article, I suppose this leaves the burden of boldness upon me, and the right to revert to any other editor who cares enough to do so. I am certainly ready to discuss the relative merits of names in that list. Thanks for your advice, as well as for catching all those typos.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that a community work out a policy that applies to composer articles to determine once who is notable and not every time an article about a composer is edited. Hyacinth (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a utopian ideal, but I wish you all success! A scale of notability could be somewhat contentious, which is why I chose the arbitrary measure of size in bytes of the Wikipedia biographical articles of the subjects in question. Personally, I find the result dubious in several cases, but I would very much like to hear from editors who have a better idea of how to score such things.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks a lot! Short and to the point! Cheers! Alireza1357 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Face-smile.svg – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

This is just to thank you for the message you sent me yesterday in response to my general enquiry. What you said was very useful. Many thanks. I'm Estonian. TinaTinatamman (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Baron Samedi[edit]

Hi Finnusertop. I've noticed the removal of "in popular culture" on this page (shown here) as a consensus result of "Rmv unsourced/OR/non-RS/self-sourced per Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#popular-culture-RfC". Just wondering if the articles in Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture would result in the same action or will they stay the way they are? If the latter, if sourced properly, should the same action be taken with the Baron Samedi article and others in relation to this scope? I was reading upon some Marvel comic issues, and in the book Batman: Arkham Asylum (1989), The Joker spews about being possessed by Baron Ghede, the Voodoo loa, which led me to this article noticing the removal. Ping me back in a response. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Savvyjack23. The RfC applies to all articles and all popular culture entries, regardless of whether they appear in an "In popular culture" section or the whole article is about popular culture. WP:BURDEN applies here: if you want to return content that was removed for this reason, you need to return it with an inline citation to a reliable third party source. This RfC doesn't address the many other problems in "In popular culture" content, but Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content does. In particular, such content should not be mere lists of appearances. The content should answer in general terms whether, how, and why the topic has been important to popular culture and use the same kinds of appearances as examples that reliable sources do. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

reply[edit]

I see there is a talk link to your reply and hence I am using it.

I saw the article for Jerry Cuomo and used that as a template source entry point. The patents are stated to verify an independent reliable source. I am the inventor of the Digital Driver's License that will work like plastic. There has been for years a number of efforts to create a digital driver's license and none successful they require a connection to validate and also privacy control does not exists. So hence my article. I am also the lead inventor for the Someone is typing... patent on your phone. The intent of the my article is to Wiki

 who invented the Digital Driver's License
 and the Mathematics behind it for privacy

I would add more for the how the disconnect works but that requires pictures which I do not have upload access yet.


My question is, It says push a button for review but there is no button to push for review. 

By the way Benoit Mandelbrot was in my department who invented Fractals and I looked at his also.

Another question I added personal interests but felt it was not appropriate but it was on Jerry Cuomo's Wiki which seems definitely an Audio Biography since I cannot really point to it being the creator of something directly really.

I looked in Wiki for Theodore Maiman patenting the world first laser. For his Known For.

My Known For: truly the disruptive technology for the Digital Driver's License Jan 2016.

So please let me know what I can do to make this clean, also there is no review button to press. I am not selling anything but conveying the inventor and how it works. The mathematics editing was rough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardredpath (talkcontribs) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Richardredpath. None of these achievements entitle a person to an article on Wikipedia. You can find the full list of criteria that do here: Wikipedia:Notability (people).
I agree with everything that Dbfirs told you in their reply at the Teahouse. At this point, you have failed to demonstrate notability, and in addition, the entirety of the draft seems to consists of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Since you asked a direct question about how to submit a review, I will answer it, but at this point doing so will not do any good. If you want to submit a draft for review, add the following line to the page and hit save: {{subst:submit}}
– Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juche, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Korean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Majora#File:Gambia FA.png[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Majora#File:Gambia FA.png. Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Smoking in North Korea[edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
Hi, congratulations for getting Smoking in North Korea to Good Article Status! It was a pleasure assisting in the review. Thank you for working on North Korean topics, your work is greatly appreciated here. Cheers! ComputerJA () 07:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Smoking in North Korea[edit]

The article Smoking in North Korea you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Smoking in North Korea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stingray Trainer -- Stingray Trainer (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This guy = Good guy (unlike all the rest of the vandalizing finns)[edit]

He said welcome and is helpful, as a finn myself i can confirm that this is probably the only friendly finn out there and the best finn to ever live. I'm starting a new religion and it will then be named Finnusertoppism

VIttu kun on hyvä että olet olemassa, ota kalja: [] <<<<Totally a KARJALA can Asdfäölkjhgfdsa (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Pak Chong-ae[edit]

Finnusertop--you're the resident North Korea expert? Please help clear something up: how can Pak Chong-ae (see final paragraph) resurface in the 1980s (at a venerable age) if she died in 1967? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I perhaps should be the "expert" on this article since I'm the only major contributor. You are right of course, Drmies, there must be some mistake.
Here's what I gather: Andrei Lankov makes the claim that she held minor positions in the late 1980s in three separate texts (with varying percision), and I don't think he is mistaken. On a closer look, some other sources (in Korean, in the External links section) assign her posts after 1967 as well (though only barely, in 1968). I've only seen the death date 1967 in one source, and I've come to the conclusion that it's probably inaccurate. My theory is that the alleged 1967 date came about by the author jumping into the conclusion that Pak died in the process of the purge (1966), but this is something that Lankov explicitly denies and no other source lends confirmation to. Pak probably died in or after 1986 (yes, at a high age) while nominally in office. I've updated the article accordingly. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks--I'm glad we have an expert. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited L. Onerva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symbolism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Finnusertop. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Two corpses[edit]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable operas you indicated that there are two lists of operas with different content. I cannot find any evidence of this. To support a discussion I am having with Softlavender (talk · contribs) if you can actually see two different sets of content, please give details on my user_talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

List of (notable) people with dwarfism[edit]

Please see Talk:List of notable people with dwarfism#List title. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about section headings[edit]

Hi, thanks for looking at Lilias Armstrong. I was hoping you could clarify something for me. The section with full bibliographic information is something I had called "References" with the citation footnotes being called "Citations" [1], but another editor changed the section headings to the version you saw [2]. Do you think the version I originally had is okay? I agree that it feels weird to have called that section "Further reading" if I cite them, although the editor who made that change said that since WP:Further reading said "By contrast, Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend," it was okay to have it be "Further reading" even if I cite them. I'm just very confused about the proper headings; it seems like everyone I talk to says I should do it a different way. Umimmak (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Umimmak. This is a style issue rather than a strict policy set in stone and practice varies across articles. A good balance of common sense and adherence to the Manual of Style is in order. I'm fairly familiar with the short footnotes citation style and calling the long citations "Further reading" is, in my opinion, bad advice here. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Since you're familiar with the short footnotes citation style, do you think it's okay for some short footnotes to go up to Armstrong's works in the "Selected works" section and some short footnotes to go down to "Works cited"? Another editor seemed to suggest that might be a problem and I should bring them all down to "Works cited" instead, but it seems less desirable to combine her own works which I cite and other works which I cite. Thank you for any thoughts :) Umimmak (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a good question, Umimmak. My suggestion is to duplicate the works by Armstrong that you cite in both sections and keep the works that you don't cite in the "Selected works" section. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

re File:TrumpOrb.png[edit]

(Cross-posted to 2 other editors who edited the file talk page) Hi, I'm a little unclear on the exact procedure that's going on here and what to do next. An editor tagged the article for deletion, and there was a bit of back-and-forth, with an editor saying (in an edit summary) "You must leave the di template in place until decided upon by an admin" (emphasis added).

This sounds like a speedy-delete situation where one person decides the issue and that doesn't seem right to me. I want a full-dress discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion or wherever and let's get consensus to delete the image, if it is going to be deleted. If it was a contested-speedy-delete another editor could just remove the deletion tag (one did, but it was reverted). Not sure of the procedure here so I don't want to jump in myself, but could whomever is responsible and knowledgeable move this over to where it goes? Wikipedia:Files for discussion I guess, or of not there let's have WP:MFD or whatever applies

Celebrating 4 years of editing[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Finnusertop. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg

June 2017 London attacks[edit]

The attackers told us their motives. It's really that simple. Please stop vandalizing my edits, I don't wan't to have to involve moderators in this, & I trust that you can be a decent person about this & we cann come to a mutual understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talkcontribs) 04:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CitationKneaded, and thanks for dropping by. I'm afraid it's not that simple. We can't drawn conclusions, because that would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All we do is summarzie what realiable sources have said. Once you can find and cite a reliable source that has come to that conclusion and explicity calls it Islamic terrorism, we can include the informaiton in the article. Personally, I don't doubt that this is the conclusion that reliable sources will draw, eventually. But we work with what's in the sources right now, not what will probably be there tomorrow or later. You've been asked to provide a reliable source pending the addition of that content, and the burden to provide one is on you.
How much more reliable than "first-hand eyewitness accounts" does it get? I provided multiple references, did I not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talkcontribs) 04:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@CitationKneaded: Secondary and tertiary sources are preferred to first hand-accounts (read WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). If first-hand accounts are used, you need to limit yourself to what is directly supported by them (such as the claim that eyewitnesses heard attackers shout "This is for Allah"). You must refrain from making any kind of interpretation or drawing conclusions at all. No reliable secondary source has so far come to the conclusion that the attack was Islamic terrorism. For someone to put that on Wikipedia is to engage in original research, ie. presenting conclusions previously unpublished by reliable sources, irrespective of whether they are true or not. We're after the verifiablity of claims made in Wikipedia's voice can be found in previously published reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Please also read Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn what is and is not vandalism. It's a serious accusation and the meaning is often conflated with other content disputes and behavioral issues. I also believe we can settle this without admin intervention. That's what the article Talk page is for. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 04:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Well I tried to, but Wesley Wolf seemed determined to throw the weight of his seniority & editing privileges behind his obvious bias & was clearly more interested in shutting down dissent than fostering discussion. Say, do you know how I would report him to the admins for stalking & harassment? I tried to google it, but the results were inconclusive. As I said, I usually don't like to get admins involved, but cyberstalking someone like he did (and then bragging about it) for no apparent reason other than his ego, I think is crossing a line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talkcontribs) 05:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing ![edit]

Thanks for noticing the new article I created on the book The Case for Impeachment ! What do you think of the article ? Sagecandor (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks very well-written and comprehensive with good referencing, Sagecandor, so great job! I might give it a detailed read later. I watch new GA review articles, but I don't do reviews myself. I have a hunch that this one is going to pass though. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop, can you please reconsider your action here ? [3]. Please note, the nominator is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, and has produced zero evidence to back up his spurious claims about that particular book review source, which are falsehoods, in an attempt to delete everything I have written. Please see comments by an admin about his behavior, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS. Sagecandor (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop, please see this comment. I believe what MrX is saying is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- or else, they should be discounted. Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop, please see this fact from Publishers Weekly about New York Journal of Books: "No one associated with the site is being paid". Can you please revisit your position? Sagecandor (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Sagecandor. The deletion discussion has been closed, with a result of keeping the article. I'm sorry that I haven't revisited the discussion despite the new information you've brought me. I don't like changing my position back and forth, and I am assuming good faith with regards what DHeyward has told us. In this case, it may have been erroneous. Now that the article has been kept, I wish you good luck with it. For my part, I pledge to be more careful in deletion discussions. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't seem to get anything right today. The other article was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS was kept, but this one is still under discussion. I'll see what I can do. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I pinged you at the open one. Sagecandor (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please note that WP:NBOOK Criteria (1) Specifically includes: (A) Books reviews, and (B) Bestseller Lists. This book has one of each, at least, with The Wall Street Journal Best Seller List. Doesn't that meet it meets WP:NBOOK ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Sagecandor, I am not going to change my vote and I will not say anything further about whether this book may be notable or not. Like I said, I don't feel comfortable going back and forth with my vote, so I'll rather let others make the decision here. I also have the feeling that you won't need my vote. The votes that are in are overwhelmingly keeps and it's inconceivable that the outcome will be anything other than that. I hope you can appreciate that. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope you're correct. It doesn't feel good to be the subject of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, with the nominator making provably false claims about sources, per comments by an admin about his behavior, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS. Sagecandor (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Can you help verify translations of articles from finnish[edit]

Hello Finnusertop,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from finnish to English Wikipedia?

Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original finnish article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including finnish , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from finnish. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

  1. François_Bazaramba
  2. Väinö_Kunnas
  3. Ilmari Aalto
  4. List_of_Valmet_products
  5. Atria_(company)

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the finnish article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Elinruby (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1[edit]

Hello (again?). I created Wikipedia:Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1 regarding the FA status of Firefly (TV series). --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Karlheinz Stockhausen[edit]

Hi,

I saw your reversion back to ALLCAPS in parts of two musical titles mentioned in this article. I realize that ALLCAPS were used in the original titles, but it seems to me that they were for emphasis and to call attention, just like almost all their other uses, including in other music titles. It also struck me as similar to a mixed use newspaper headline, like "EXCLUSIVE: Kim Kardashian pregnant" – not quite the same, but the way I was looking at it, it amounts to the same thing.

The closest things that I can find addressing this in the WP Manual of Style are Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Typographic_conformity, MOS:MUSICCAPS, MOS:CT, and probably most importantly, MOS:ALLCAPS. I don't see anything to support keeping the ALLCAPS (and I admit that I have a strong dislike of ALLCAPS in almost every situation), but I'm interested in hearing your perspective.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ira Leviton. My perspective is this discussion that deals with this problem in general in the names of compositions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#What are the rules on exceptions? It also specifically mentions Stockhausen. I have no preference to one way or another, other than hammering out a consensus is probably better than leaving this up in the air. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, the one thing that seems certain is that there's not going to be certainty on this – and until the Manual of Style sets rules on this (if ever), somebody will disagree. It doesn't seem that consensus is possible because the opinions are too many and varied, there are exceptions, and it's not limited to classical music, or even all music. I'll put in my two cents publicly and will leave the article as you left it. Thanks for your quick response.
Ira
Ira Leviton (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Lord Buckethead[edit]

I posted on the talk page there, but the lead doesn't mention the satirical anti-political nature or the characterisation. There are multiple issues with the article that need to be addressed. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)